National
Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations
2006

The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and
Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords,
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order
Paper.

Moved, That the draft
regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved [30th Report
from the Joint Committee] [Considered in Grand Committee on 4
July].(Lord Sainsbury of
Turville.)

On Question,
Motion agreed
to.

Housing
Corporation (Delegation) etc.
Bill

Read a third time, and
passed.

Education
and Inspections Bill

3.18
pm

The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and
Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, I beg to move
that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this
Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on
Question, Motion agreed
to.

House in Committee
accordingly.

[The LORD SPEAKER
in the Chair.]

Clause 7
[Invitation for proposals for establishment of new
schools]:

Baroness
Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No.
58:

Page 7, line 3,
after second a insert
reasonable

18 July 2006 : Column 1126

The noble Baroness
said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to
AmendmentsNos. 59, 60, 61, 121A, 125A, 125B, 125BA, 125C, 125D
and 182. This set of 10 amendments aims, on the one hand, to probe the
process of competition for the setting up of trust schools, asking in
particular what kinds of bodies the Government are looking for as
sponsors for such schools and, on the other, to put forward the notion
of the community-sponsored trustor, as we have called it, the
community foundationas an alternative to a
private sector sponsor. Finally, Amendment No. 182 probes the whole
question of the schools
commissioner.

The first set of
amendments deals with the process of competition. Amendment No. 58 asks
that the time period specified for preparation and submission of
proposals in any competition should be reasonable. When a similar
amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Government made it clear
that they were sympathetic to the need to have balance between speedy
competition and adequate time to prepare the proposal but did not think
that the addition of the word reasonable was needed. We
are concerned that inadequate time will favour the corporate
sponsorsthe Edisons of this world who will perhaps have a
ready-made proposal that they can pull off the shelfover, let
us say, a local parents group. I believe that the Government
are anxious that such groups should put forward proposals. If those
groups are to make such a proposal, they will need to find professional
help, and the money to pay for such help in putting their proposal
together. We feel that it is reasonable that reasonable
should be included on the face of the
Bill.

Amendments Nos. 59 and 61
seek to prove the kinds of qualifications the Government have in mind
for sponsors of trust schools. Perhaps we might put alongside
Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 Amendments 121A and 125A, which seek to
establish a register of institutions regarded as suitable to establish
such foundations. Similar amendments were tabled on Report in the
Commons. In response, the Secretary of State
said:

Allowing
schools to choose a trust partner only from a register would fetter the
freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their schools,
in light of their individual circumstances. It would lead to additional
bureaucracy and delay, especially when schools were considering local,
community-based trusts that would not benefit from a centralised
process for formal approval.[Official Report,
Commons, 23/05/06; col.
1358.]

During
the Committee stage, the draft guidance on trust schools was circulated
to MPs serving on Standing Committee E. This guidance singled out as
unsuitable to become partners in running a trust school companies
involved in tobacco, alcohol, gambling and adult entertainment. It
stated that governing bodies should,

ensure that
trust partners are not involved in activities that may
be considered inappropriate for young
people.

However,
there is concern that any attempt to set out a list of inappropriate
organisations will not address widespread concerns about trusts because
of the organisations that the guidance fails to proscribe.For
example, nothing in the guidance would necessarily protect young people
from religious extremists,extreme political groups, pressure
groups or fast-food manufacturers.

18 July 2006 : Column 1127

The guidance makes it clear that the list
is not exhaustive and that decision makers must have particular regard
to the strength of parental and other local opinion about the
appropriateness of trust partners activities. It goes on to
list positive examples of trust scenarios. These include a
top-performing school taking over a weaker school, universities or
colleges linking up with schools to improve the take-up of higher
education and groups of schools banding together to share computer or
financial management facilities. I suppose that that would extend to a
group of schools already federated. We are very happy with those
examples, but, significantly, there is no mention of faith groups or
private companies in that list of positive examples.

At Second Reading in the House of
Commons, the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, sought to address
concerns regarding trusts. She
said:

I can tell the
House that there will be very strong safeguards to prevent the
acquisition of inappropriate trusts. That is essential. As a result,
they will be regulated by the Charity Commission as well as by the
local authority. They will be funded by the local authority, which will
be able to object on educational grounds to any trust that it thinks
will damage childrens educational standards. However, perhaps
the most important safeguard will be the common sense of the parents
and governing bodies. They will decide whether it is in a
schools interest to adopt a particular
trust.[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/06; cols.
1464-5.]

The mention of
common
sense

The
Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the
noble Baroness, but could noble Lords opposite either talk outside or
not talk, because it is very difficult to
concentrate?

Baroness
Sharp of Guildford: Mention of
common sense brings me rather neatly to the only other amendment in
this first set that I have not so far dealt withAmendment No.
60. If common sense is to be the arbiter of who might be a suitable
partner, parents will be looking for a sponsor who will improve
provision in their area. Therefore, it is utterly reasonable to ask, as
Amendment No. 60 does, that those seeking to establish trust schools
should specify how they would improve provision in the area and
especially provision for the disadvantaged, since trust schools are to
be established particularly to ensure that the disadvantaged get a
reasonable share of the pie.

That first set of
amendments deals with the process of competition and, in particular,
selection of sponsored partners. The second set of amendments in this
group of 10 includes Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D. Their purpose is to
promote the Liberal Democrat alternative to the Governments
vision of the trust school. We would call it a community
trust, or, in the words of the Bill, a community
foundation. We have throughout argued in favour of viewing
education from a community perspective. In this series of amendments,
we propose a foundation run by a local authority or a grouping of local
authorities. For example, a grouping of local district councils and the
county council might form what we have called the community
foundation.

Amendment
No. 125B specifies that the foundation will consist of one-third
elected local authority members,

18 July 2006 : Column 1128

one-third parents and one-third other community representatives. I am
afraid that the gremlins got into the drafting of the amendment, which
is incorrect on the Marshalled List. However, a new version of it has
been circulated. Amendment No. 125C seeks to provide that such a
community foundation would embrace all the schools in a given area, and
would require that they all collaborated and worked together. Amendment
No. 125D is consequential to those two
amendments.

It
is notable that, in their evidence for Second Reading, both the General
Teaching Council and the Association of School and College Leaders
strongly endorsed the idea of encouraging schools to collaborate
according to the concept of the local federation. The Government have
been promoting such federations of schools at a local level, and the
amendments seek to capture some of that enthusiasm and to translate it
into what we believe to be acceptablea local and locally
accountable community foundation. I make no bones about the fact that
we are not enthusiastic about foundations run as national chains of
schools, whether they are run by Edison, Chris Woodhead or the United
Learning Trust. We are not enthused by a model that separates out local
schools and sets school against school and parent against parent, which
we feel will happen under the Governments proposals, as I made
quite clear in our discussions on earlier amendments. I repeat that we
are anxious to see local schools working together for the good of their
local
community.

Finally,
Amendment No. 182 is designed to probe the role of the schools
commissioner. Is he there just to supervise the work of the local
choice advisers? Is he there to encourage the growth of new trust
schools nationally? Is he there to ensure that the right people are
setting up trust schools? We suggest that this is where he might
perform quite a useful role if we really are to have another level of
highly paid official to ensure that the Governments agenda is
working properly. I believe that the post has already been advertised,
so the Government are already moving to appoint a schools commissioner.
It would be a great responsibility for schools to have to vet anyone
who comes before them with proposals to turn the school into a trust
school. Small schools in particular often do not have the resources to
probe the background of such people, so the Secretary of State may well
delegate the task of vetting those people to the schools
commissioner.

By publishing an open
register, as the amendment proposes, we would avoid the need to have to
use the freedom of information legislation, as now, to find out who has
applied to form a trust. An open register would give parents and
schools confidence in a system that is very new and highly suspect, in
the view of many of our fellow citizens. It is therefore in the
Governments interests to go along with this idea. Although
local authorities should be able to decide what sorts of people are
acceptable locally, there should be some sort of national standard of
what is acceptable, otherwise undesirable people might simply go from
one area to another until they find one that is not so choosy. The
standards should be much more detailed than simply ruling out
pornographers and tobacco manufacturers.

18 July 2006 : Column 1129

The Government might sayindeed,
they do saythat the Charity Commission will vet potential
trustees, but the Charity Commission cannot do so for two reasons.
First, it does not have the capacity to deal with the expected volume.
Secondly, it would need to change and extend the checks that it already
carries out on charity trustees in order to make them fit for purpose
for this educational task. It is much better for the Secretary of State
to delegate this task to the new commissioner. I beg to
move.

Baroness
Williams of Crosby: I strongly support my noble
friends arguments in favour of this group of proposals. Let us
be very direct: if we believe that the Bill gives parents new powers,
new strengths and a new influence, it is vital that those parents are
properly informed about the decisions in which they will participate.
My noble friend has pointed out that parents will not know exactly who
is proposing to be part of trust schools or to start academies, or what
their qualifications and standards are. It would be simply foolish in
the light of a good deal of information that has emerged in the past
few months to pretend that we are certain that all those people who put
their names forward will be likely to contribute substantially to the
standard, the quality and, if I may say so, the moral integrity of our
education system.

There are
already some worrying examples. For instance, although Mr Bernie
Ecclestone was not successful in his bid, we know now as a result of
the Freedom of Information Act that he put in for running one of the
academies in Sheffield. I am not in a positionnor would I
wishto make personal remarks about Mr Bernie Ecclestone, but he
would not immediately leap to mind as an ideal figure for sponsoring a
new school. In the case of the academy recently started in
Peterborough, to take another example, we know that all three of the
governing bodies of the schools to be replaced protested that there was
no reason to believe that the sponsor had any particular interest in
education. Other examples spring to mind. One of the most troubling is
the possibility that arms manufacturers might be involved in starting
up a trust school in the south-west of England. Arms manufacturers may
well have a legitimate role, but again they do not leap to mind as an
ideal model to be in charge of sponsoring a major new school. Perhaps
one would want someone with a rather wider view of the needs of our
globalising world.

3.30
pm

For such reasons,
it seems to me that we should support the concept that my noble friend
has put forward: a register giving the names and qualifications of
those seeking to become trustees or sponsors of trust schools, which
should be made available to those who are most interested and
concernedeither the parents of children who may go to that
school or the parents of children registered with schools that are
being replaced by the potential trust school or academy.

18 July 2006 : Column 1130

I register with pleasure the
Governments intention in the Bill to make parents play a much
larger part in the education of their children, but there are two huge
weaknesses in the Bill. The first is the absence of adequate
information for those parents to make up their minds and the
secondwhich we will come to later and to which I will make no
further reference at the momentis the absence of a proper
system of balloting so that we know exactly the wishes and preferences
of parents. The principle is fine, but the devil is in the details. So
far I for one am not satisfied that the details bear out the
Governments stated wishes for the
Bill.

There are two other things
worth adding. One is the point made by my noble friend about the
ability to check up on the sponsors of schools at a later stage. Not
only do we know that the Charity Commission does not have the capacity
to do that, but the truth is that it does not do it. The recent answers
that were given on the assessment of academies indicated that the
Charity Commission does not regard this as a central part of its
dutiesindeed, it would not be expected to do so, given its
functions.

The question again
emerges: who is responsible? Who guards the guardians? The answer may
lie with the schools commissioner or with the local authority, but it
is not at all clear where the responsibility lies. My noble friend has
pointed to a real hole or gap in the Bill. She is endeavouring to fill
it in a way that the Government, if they want the best possible
outcomes from sponsored schools, should respond to favourably. Frankly,
I do not think that the answers given in another place to the arguments
put forward on this front for one moment hold sufficient water. Ruth
Kelly, when she was Secretary of State, referred to the common
sense of parents. I agree with her about the common sense of
parents, but parents who are uninformed and not given the information
that they need to reach proper opinions and make proper decisions
cannot be blamed if they get it wrong. It is the responsibility of the
Government in the Bill to make sure that as far as possible parents are
given the information to enable them to get it
right.

Baroness
Buscombe: I should like to speak to some of these
amendments and explain why we will not be supporting them. I refer in
particular to Amendments Nos. 121A, 125A and 182. So far as we can
understand, Amendment No. 121A would mean that trusts for trust schools
would have to be centrally registered. I do not see the purpose of this
since the governing body already has to have regard to guidance on the
acquisition of trusts which makes it clear that unsuitable trusts may
not run schools. Under the Bill the foundations already have to be
charitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, evidently believes that
registered charity status, together with the additional restriction on
persons who may act as charity trustees for a foundation, is
insufficient to ensure that trusts are suitable. I also doubt that any
school would truly opt to acquire a trust that was actually as
unsuitable as she and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have
suggested.

18 July 2006 : Column 1131

Amendment No. 182 goes further and
underlines the opposition of the Liberal Democrats for the concept of a
school driven by parents. While it would prevent non-approved
foundations proposing new schools without first registering with the
Schools commissioner, it would also apply to groups of parents or any
other private promoter. Furthermore, it would require local authorities
to seek approval from the Schools commissioner if they wish to
establish new schools, which I am not sure is the intention here. This
would mean an awful lot more bureaucracy with unintended consequences.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that while the Liberal Democrats have
spent so much time both here and in another place criticising the
Government and the Opposition for imposing central control from
Whitehall, here they propose an unnecessary central layer of
bureaucracy from
Whitehall.

Turning to a
redefinition of the word foundation, set out in
Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D, we see that Amendment No. 125B redefines
foundations where a local authority is represented on the foundation.
It would mean that
a,

majority, but no
more than 33 per cent., of its members shall be
members,

of
the local education authority. However, it should be noted that members
of local education authorities are currently prohibited from acting as
charity trustees under the draft education regulations 2006 covering
the requirements as to foundations. I am not sure what a
majority, but no more than 33 per cent., means. Perhaps
the noble Baroness meant plurality, although perhaps not since it also
specifies that a second 33 per cent would be represented by parents.
The remaining third would be represented by the community. I am not
sure of the purpose behind this amendment. However, it would prevent a
number of possibilities, including the possibility of a local authority
entering into partnership with a philanthropic organisation such as an
educational charity or livery company for the purpose of running a
school, which would be a great shamein fact, it would be a
disaster.

I
hope that Amendment No. 125C is unnecessary since I imagine that trusts
could already act in the way envisaged in the amendment. Amendment No.
125D would remove new Section 23(b) of the Schools Standards and
Framework Act, which will allow the Secretary of State to remove
charity trustees. This was raised in another place, at the end of which
Sarah Teather MP said that the then Minister had addressed most of her
concerns. At the time the Minister made it clear that the removal of a
charity trustee was a fallback position to be used in exceptional
circumstances and gave compelling reasons for having such a power,
particularly that it is impossible to set out in regulations all
possible future circumstances. Paragraph 7 of the draft regulations
shows that the power can be used only where the Secretary of State is
satisfied that the person has acted in any way incompatible with the
objectives or purposes of the foundation or the person is likely to
bring into disrepute any school to which the foundation appoints
governors. I believe that when we are dealing with children in
education, it is vitally important to protect them from unsuitable
persons. If Clause 125D were

18 July 2006 : Column 1132

accepted, I fear it risks undermining the safety of children by
preventing the Secretary of State acting in cases that fall short of
the criteria listed in
regulations.

Perhaps
I may add a point on the absence of information for parents to act on
when choosing a school. We look forward to seeing the amendments
proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who I know is keen on
having some form of information pack. Indeed, he goes further than that
by suggesting information centres to give parents the opportunity to
gather information easily on the different schools and choices
available to them within their
area.

Lord
Adonis: Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that the
time for promoters for submit proposals should be reasonable. We agree,
but I am glad to say that in fact the regulations concerning this
provision, which I have now circulated, lay down that the period must
be at least four months. As those regulations will be in place, that
will be an absolute requirement. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady
Sharp, and other noble Lords will agree that four months is a
reasonable period, including for community groups that may take longer
to put proposals together.

On
Amendments Nos. 59, 61, 121A, 125A and 182, we agree that there need to
be appropriate safeguards against unsuitable partners being involved in
the running of schools. That is why we have a proper process in place
for governing bodies to publish proposals in respect of trusts and to
take decisions in relation to them. As the noble Baroness, Lady
Buscombe, recognised, substantial guidance is being made available to
schools on this, which I think meets the points raised by the noble
Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams. I have circulated the draft
guidance to the Committee. I quote from page 128 of
it:

In determining the
suitability and appropriateness of a particular Trust, a governing body
should
therefore:

Consider
whether and how the acquisition of the particular Trust will support
the school in raising standards, improving the quality of teaching and
learning and improving delivery of the five Every Child
Matters outcomes for all
children;

Consider how
the Trust fits with the schools character and ethos and how it
will develop the culture of the school
further;

Consider what
perspectives, experience and skills the Trust will bring to support the
schools
mission;

Consider the
potential impact of the partnership on other schools in the locality
and on any other organisations or bodies likely to be
affected;

Take into
account the local authoritys and parents view of the
potential Trust and the nature of the partnership with the
school;

Take into
account the Trusts previous track record of involvement in
schools and education more generally, as well as the experience and
expertise of the proposed
Trustees;

Consider
whether particular Trusts should be considered unsuitable on the
grounds of inappropriatenessfor example, ensure that Trust
partners are not involved in activities that may be considered
inappropriate for children and young people (for example, tobacco,
gambling, adult entertainment, alcohol etc.).

I believe that that meets
the points raised in that regard.

18 July 2006 : Column 1133

Baroness
Williams of Crosby: I am
grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, as he suggests, the
recommendations and advice given in the document that he has circulated
are extremely acceptable, and anyone would recognise
that.

The big question is why
parents per se are not given an opportunity to contribute to
that decision because they know the names and qualifications of those
involved. Why do they have to go through the governing body to do that,
and why is it a matter only for the governing body to determine how far
their views are taken into
account?

Lord
Adonis: The governing body will need to take into
account the views of parents. We shall debate later the noble
Baronesss precise amendments on ballots of parents. I do not
want to rehearse all the arguments, but this is the standard procedure
for schools taking decisions of the utmost gravity affecting them in
many other areas, including a whole range of other characteristics
concerning the future of the school. We do not believe that, in
qualitative terms, this is any
different.

However, over and
above the requirements on the school governing body both in terms of
how it makes the decision and the factors that it must take into
account, we have given a power to local authorities to refer proposals
to the adjudicator when they are concerned about the implications for a
particular trust of standards at a school. The adjudicator will then
make a professional and impartial judgment, which, of course, will
override that of the governing body in the event of that judgment being
different. We do not think it necessary to regulate further than that.
In particular, we believe that the creation of a national register
would act as a barrier to innovation and fetter the freedom of
governing bodies to decide what is best for their own schools, subject
to oversight by the adjudicator.

In so far as the
register proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is intended to be
illustrative and informative to encourage the development of
appropriate trusts, this function will indeed be performed by the
national schools commissioner, who will keep a record of all trusts
established and make it available on his website. Therefore, there will
be no need TO use the FoI Act, as the noble Baroness
feared.

With
regard to the kinds of trusts that may come forward, we expect that
they will include higher and further education institutions, existing
successful schools and bona fide education and business foundations. A
particular concern of the noble Baroness is whether they can include
community trusts. If she means trusts that have local authority
engagement within the provisions of the Bill as it stands, they
absolutely can. We will give strong encouragement to local authorities
to be engaged in trusts alongside other local community groups and
organisations which can make a substantial contribution to improving
schools.

3.45
pm

Amendment
No. 60 would require a notice published by a local authority inviting
bids in a competition to specify in what ways proposals would improve
education in the area, especially those from disadvantaged homes. I
believe we have covered that. The illustrative regulations

18 July 2006 : Column 1134

that I made available to the committee require the notice setting out
the invitation to partners to come forward to provide a new school; to
explain why the new school is considered necessary; the reason for the
choice of sites; the size and age range of the school; and any extended
or special needs provision. The notice can also specify other matters,
including objectives specifically in respect of disadvantaged pupils or
communities. Furthermore, local authorities will judge the competition
unless they choose to enter their own proposals, in which case it will
be the adjudicator. That will enable local authorities to ensure that
the successful proposal meets the needs of the disadvantaged and
demonstrates the right
characteristics.

Amendments Nos.
125BA and 125C seek to enhance the influence of the local authority
over trusts and trust schools. As I say, we support the concept of a
community trust. If that means a trust as set out under the provisions
of the Bill, of course it can proceed. The 20 per cent level for local
authority engagement in trusts, as set out in the Bill, gives local
authorities the flexibility to play a valuable role in brokering those
relationships and supporting the formation of trusts in their
communities. The 20 per cent figure is also consistent with provisions
in local government legislation about local authority involvement in
companies and trusts more widely.

However, we do not believe that it is
right to increase that proportion beyond 20 per cent, which will get
close to making local authorities the dominant force in a trust. If a
local authority wishes to have that level of control over a trust, it
anyway has the option of promoting a community school and exercising
this control directly, provided that its track record is good enough.
When taken in the round, our policy on trusts is balanced, proportional
and workable. Our policy on collaboration is enabling and not
prescriptive. I hope that I have met the concerns that have been
raised.

Baroness
Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister
for his response. I should like to clear up one or two misconceptions
on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, before replying to
some of the points that he has made. I should make absolutely clear
that we are not opposed to trusts being established by groups of
parents. Essentially, we would very much like to see that. The concept
of the local community trust is the local authority and local groups of
parents getting together to promote a local community of schools. I am
sorry that the noble Baroness did not read Amendment No. 182 to mean
this, but that is what we meant.

I also think that the
noble Baroness misread another amendment. The clean version which has
been circulated in manuscript today makes it quite clear that we are
looking at members of local authorities. We are specifically looking to
a situation where it might be the district council, which is not an
education authority, participating in the local community trust. We
feel that this is a question of trying to get local community and
democratic representation within the concept of the trust. So far as
the trust is concerned, schools will be spending a considerable
proportion of money. It is appropriate

18 July 2006 : Column 1135

that there is democratic accountability within the governance of the
system. A situation such as one has with academies where the only
accountability is with the Secretary of State is not one that we feel
to be thoroughly
satisfactory.